No More Limbo for j00 - You're In!!

Link One Church

Link No More Limbo :/

I will leave you with a couple of thoughts.  Which you may or may not accept.  It is your choice.

First, the Pope is only infallible when he goes Ex-Cathedra, which has only happened twice in the last 500 years.  All the rest of the time, he is just the head teacher, and is as fallible as any man (or woman).

Second, the concept of condemning babies to hell was papered over in the Middle ages with the concept of Limbo.  A concept that the Second Vatican Council put to rest.  Basically, the child has not sinned so is not eligible for Hell, and there is no Limbo (Dante not withstanding).

I know that many would like to vilify the Catholic church due to past transgressions.  However, I would hope that most would learn more about the teachings before passing summary judgement.  And the Pope's latest teachings (in no way is it infallible), are just addressing questions of interfaith differences, so that a starting point for interfaith reconcilliation can occur.  It is not meant to be marching orders for any of the faithful, just a theological discussion so that other Christian faiths can then start a dialogue of commonality to reach an understanding of agreement.  Nothing more.  And certainly nothing within this blog.

I can't dance. Dr. Guy is a good dancer, though. The Catholic church is Fred Astaire

Dr. Guy is a good dancer, though.

No,just trying to educate those who dont want it.

I think it just has.

"No,just trying to educate those who dont want it."

Educate those who don't want what? Education? Catholicism? A Bullshit factory 2 hours north of where I currently live?

I apologize, teach on. Be clear this time - I am concerned there might be a test later. By the way, I looked up ex-cathedra, so you DID teach me something - rather I taught myself - as usual. "When a Pope speaks from the chair (cathedra) of authority as the visible head of all Christians, his teaching is infallibly Christ’s true teaching." So can I get these chairs from IKEA? I'd like to be right all the time by virtue of the fact I'm in a certain chair.

anyone who dies under 8 goes straight to heaven

the reason age 8 is becouse that is when you are supposed to know right from wrong.

this is why i think adam and eve spent 8 years in the garden.

anyone who dies under 8 goes straight to heaven the reason age 8 is becouse that is when you are supposed to know right from wrong. this is why i think adam and eve spent 8 years in the garden.

Dude, are you for real? At 8 years old I was still refining the best way to wipe my own ass.

I've got it down now, by the way.

i didn't say you knew everything

Jesus did only create one church. The First United Bapti-costal Church of Christ Our Lord. If the Catholics want to have their own church, that's fine, but meanwhile, the church that Jesus created, you know, the one WITHOUT a Pope (I thought Jesus was the head of the church he created?) will be over here worshipping Jesus instead of Mary.

Pretty soon he'll say that everyone, even not in the Christian sects, are members of the church Jesus set up.

Anyway, I thought the 8 year old thing was just a rough guideline, and that it is when you actually know right from wrong.

Education is not bad, and self eduction is the best as it is retained the longest.

Thanks, LW. Now I don't have to leave random messages on whatever your latest post is

No word on where to get the Infallible Chair, I see.

As for knowing right from wrong, it's not 100% possible because context has as much to do with right/wrong as action. Example. I buy an underage drinker a bottle of booze. That's wrong, no? Well as it happens, he careens out of control in his car after getting wasted and runs over a guy who's holding up at gunpoint and in fact is about to kill the person who will eventually cure Pancreatic cancer. Good thing I bought him the booze now, eh?

I'm sure that because my tongue is so firmly implanted in my cheek, the message will be lost, but then I don't find it often the case that fundamentalists really want to think about things in different ways anyway, so no problem. They're blessed with already knowing everything about right and wrong. They must have those Infallible Chairs!

What if the kid dies in the accident, and he was going to grow up to cure AIDS? Now you've done wrong again.

Now the guy holding him up at gunpoint just needed some money so he could buy his son a chemistry set, which was going to spark his interest in Chemistry and he was going to cure, hmm, the common cold. But since he's now not getting that Chemistry set, he's never going to discover science. Plus he lost his Dad, which causes him to drop out of school start his own career as a stick-up man, who then ends up killing you.

Good story, but not likely. Anyway, the point is, wrong and right are dependent on both intent AND results. But only the results that you could foresee. At least, that's how I see it. I don't know how God sees it. Man, maybe none of us EVER really understand right from wrong.

Never mind.

Anyway, the point is, wrong and right are dependent on both intent AND results. But only the results that you could foresee. At least, that's how I see it. I don't know how God sees it. Man, maybe none of us EVER really understand right from wrong.

Yes, that's what I said. Actually said it a bit more in depth right here: Quantum Truth

in the first case if god wanted said child to cure cancer then he wouldn't die in the accident.

in the second case if god wanted that child to cure the common cold he would get his chem. set

in the first case if god wanted said child to cure cancer then he wouldn't die in the accident. in the second case if god wanted that child to cure the common cold he would get his chem. set

Unfortunately, Daniel, you fail at logic. For if what you say is true, it is then also true that we do not have free will. In fact, if God interferes in anything in any kind of way, free will goes right out the window.

So what?

Well if there is no free will, then we are not responsible for anything. It's all either God's fault or victory, but there is no sin by man and no definition of good or evil has any meaning. See if you can understand this. Read carefully, and put out of your head those things which have been planted in it. Aka, think for yourself.

"Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means, and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not. "It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him--it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligble debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man. "The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin. "A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can neither be good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice, and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code. "Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free. "What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from the state they considered perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge--he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil--he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by labor--he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire--he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy--all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was--that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love--he was not man. "Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. "They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. "No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain--and they point at the torture rack to which they've tied him, the rack with the two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. "They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to the supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth--and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that glorious jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave. "They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death. A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost--yet such is their image of man's nature: the battleground of a struggle between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that everything known to man is nonexistent, that only the unknowable exists. "Do you observe what human faculty that doctrine was designed to ignore? It was man's mind that had to be negated in order to make him fall apart. Once he surrendered reason, he was left at the mercy of two monsters whom he could not fathom or control: of a body moved by unaccountable instincts and of a soul moved by mystic revelations--he was left as the passively ravaged victim of a battle between a robot and a dictaphone."

so that a starting point for interfaith reconcilliation can occur.

Seems like an odd way to start a reconciliation. "Baby doll, I love you and think we should get back together, even though you're a lying no good bitch who's never been right about anything in your life."

just a theological discussion so that other Christian faiths can then start a dialogue of commonality to reach an understanding of agreement.

"Now, if you'll all just agree that you're heathen scum, I'm sure we can come together in a spirit of understanding."

Hmmm.



By the way, kids shouldn't be allowed in limbo. They're already so close to the ground that they always win. I mean, if they want to have their own league, or something, that would be okay.

By the way, kids shouldn't be allowed in limbo. They're already so close to the ground that they always win. I mean, if they want to have their own league, or something, that would be okay.

Hahaha...bravo!

(John Galt, in 'Atlas Shrugged', by Ayn Rand)

Shhhh...trying to let the words stand on their own lest the mindless go off on an anti-Rand tangent instead of actually reading

not at all an accident has nothing to do with free will

a child whose father who goes to jail also has nothing to do with the child's free will.

thirdly i didn't say you can't commit suicide or murder.

also both kids have the free will not to do what their supposed to do with their lives.

which means that some other kid will have to do what they were meant to do.


life is like a sonnet you can do what ever you want as long as you stay in the boundaries

Sometimes you just have to smile and nod.

"Beware the fisherman that's casting out his line into a dried up riverbed." ~Genesis (haha, figure it)